Re: [PATCH] Replace exec_permission_lite() with inlined vfs_permission()

[Paul Menage]

>
>IMO it's a bad idea.  In many cases we have ->permission() but it's
>perfectly OK with being called under dcache_lock - either always or
>in (fs-specific) "fast case".
>
>I would prefer ->permission_light() that would always be called
>under dcache_lock and besides the usual values could return -EAGAIN.
>In that case ->permission() would be called in a normal way.
>

OK - a few details/matters of taste:

- how about similar dcache_lock-safe versions of d_op->revalidate()
and i_op->follow_link()?

- an alternative to separate methods is to add a "noblock" argument 
to the existing methods. This entails more breakage in the short term.

- permission_light() or permission_lite()? :-)

Paul